Nevares v. Quiinta et al

Filing 25

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Dkt. No. 20 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/17/16.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
JULIO NEVARES,
Plaintiff,
9:15-CV-0383
(GTS/ATB)

v.
QUINTA, Correctional Officer, Watertown
Correctional Facility,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JULIO NEVARES
Plaintiff, Pro Se
c/o Carmen M. Figueroa
4024 Lacomioa Avenue, Apt. 2-A
Bronx, New York 10466
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

RYAN E. MANLEY, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this prisoner civil rights action filed pro se by Julio
Nevares (“Plaintiff”) against Correctional Officer Quinta at Watertown Correctional Facility
(“Defendant”), are Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as a discovery sanction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, and United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) None
of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do

so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers
herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can
find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the
proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a
result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set
forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Dkt. No.
20) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the
Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this action.
Dated: August 17, 2016
Syracuse, New York

____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2